v\ 



Dk/r/WAO'VN ^ 



c n 



.=\s -. 



i 



o^sAAJJV ~^ tXvL/ 





J~Lryv. (UrVtvu U. L/CuUvi 



■\yirLUi/Y\. 



(yyu 



"thJb Oi^-^yyui.yyL'CxJCL/cnv en JaXo^. 



1S44-. 







Jm^ 




aass_JEjL^_0___ 



e(yk-H '^ 



f J 



9 



LETTER 



TO THE 



1^ 

HON. JOHN C. CALHOUN, 



ON THE 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 



COOPERSTOWN : 

PRINTED BY H. & E. PHINNEY, 

1844. 



F 



t 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 

H. &. Fy. Phinney, 
in the Clerk's Office of the Northern District of New York, 



To JOHN C. CALHOUN, 

Secretary of State of the United States. 

Sir, 

The questions whether the government of the Uni- 
ted States constitutionally possess the power, and if so, 
whether it is expedient for this nation to connect itself ^vith 
the nation of Texas, and thus form one nation out of two, 
involve considerations of such vital importance and deep and 
momentous interest to every citizen of this country, as will, 
I hope, excuse one of those citizens for submitting to you, 
and through you to the pubUc, the result of his reflections 
on the subject, I have ventured to address you publicly 
through the press, without previously obtaining your consent, 
because you, as the organ of the government, negotiated 
the treaty of union between Texas and the United States ; 
and because I have for many years known you as a states- 
man of eminence, and for more than a quarter of a century 
have had the honor of a personal acquaintance with you — 
an acquaintance wliich, it gives me pleasure to say, has in- 
spired me with great admiration for your talents, and an un- 
wavering confidence in your integrity and patriotism ; — and 
I am quite sure that while you claim and exercise the right 
of declaring and acting in coincidence with your own opin- 
ions, you freely and cheerfldly accord the same right to 
others. I shall therefore, Avith the most perfect freedom, 
submit my views to you, although I am fully aware that 
those views are entirely adverse to the opinions you have 
formed and expressed on the questions I am about to con- 
sider- 
. Without an alteration of the constitution of the United 
States, and without a stipulation for the abolition of slavery 
in Texas, I am opposed to its annexation to this nation, 
either at tlie present or at any future period. 

My relations to the two great parties into which the peo- 
ple of this Union are divided, can be of little, perhaps no im- 



portance, except that it may be supposed that my opinions 
on the question of annexation may have been more or less 
intluenced by my party predilections. On this account I 
hope I may be excused ibr so far defining my position as to 
say, that though for several years past, strictly speaking, I 
have ceased to be a partizan, I have voted with the demo- 
cratic ]>arty of the state of New York ; that at the late elec- 
tion I voted for the state oiRccrs who had been selected as 
candidates by that party, but that I did not vote for electors 
of president of the United States. I could not vote for Mr. 
Polk, (although thousands, and I verily believe hundreds of 
thousands who hold opinions similar to mine on the svibject 
of annexation, did vote for him) because he had declared 
himself in favor of immediate annexation. I could not vote 
for Mr. Clay, for although I entertain a high personal regard 
for his talents and patriotism, I entirely disapprove, among 
other things, of his scheme for conducting the fiscal con- 
cerns of the nation, believing as I do that the nnich abused 
sub-treasury plan recommended by Mr. Van Buren, and 
ably and zealously supported by yourself, will be found the 
best if not the only safe and successful mode of collecting 
and disbursing the national funds ; and, I entirely disap- 
proved of Mr, Clay's letter dated the first day of last July, 
and another letter written by him afterwards on the subject 
of the annexation of Texas, as inconsistent with the views 
put forth by him in his letter from North Carolina on the 
same subject, and with the high and honorable bearing 
which has generally distinguished that eminent statesman. 

I knew too little of Mr. Birney's general political views to 
feel justified in voting for him ; and besides I have always 
considered the abolitionists as standing on a platform too 
narrow for a national political party. Although I am aware, 
and it gives me pleasure to acknowledge, that that party 
contains among its members some of the most talented and 
benevolent men in the nation, it is nevertheless, I fear true, 
that they have constructed a Procrustet i bed to the dimen- 
sions of which every individual belonging to it is compelled 
to conform — a bed on which the venerable John Quincy Ad- 
ams, Slade and Giddings, have been tortured and mangled 
with unrelenting severity. 

In all controversies, whether in politics or ethics, an adroit 
antagonist, if hard pressed for facts and reasons to support 
his positions, will seek for words and phrases which may 
seem at the outset to give him an advantage. Hence the 
advocates of the treaty of a union between Texas and the 



,5 

United States have given this union the name of the " re- 
annexatioyi''' of Texas — as if names could aher the nature 
and quahty o^ things, thereby assuming as an admitted fact, 
that the Texian territory was at some previous period a 
part of the United States. 

Tliat the United States in tlieir diplomatic communica- 
tions with Spain claimed a part of the territory which now 
constitutes Texas, is undeniable ; and it is ecpially undeni- 
able that that claim was most promptly resisted and denied 
by the Spanish, as it has since been by the Mexican and 
Texian governments. I shall not attempt to examine into 
the nature or merits of this contreversy.* It is sufficient for 
my purpose to state the fact, that after the most ample dis- 
cussion, the claim was voluntarily abandoned by the United 
States, our true south-western bounds were agreed on, and 
the line run and marked by our own agents, in accordance 
with the stipulations of a treaty duly and constitutionally 
ratified by the two governments interested in the question. 
Since that time the United States, in acknowledging Texas 
as an independent nation, has recog)nzed this boundary, 
and again publicly and solemnly admitted that that country 
formed no part of the United States. Why, then, talk of 
the re-annexation of Texas 1 As well, and with more pro- 
priety, might Great Britain talk of re-anncxing Calais, in 
France, or the territory which comprised the old thirteen 
United States, to that Empire. This, I say, the British 
might with more propriety do, because they long held pos- 
session of Calais and the United States, but this government 
never had peaceable possession of a rood of land in Texas. 
If any reliance is to be placed on the admissions and acqui- 
escence of parties, if treaties be not the merest phantoms, and 
if the pledged foith of nations be not a trick to be used only 
to lure and defi-aud, then to talk of the re-annexation of Tex- 
as is an absurdity which might be anticipated as one of the 
pitiful devices of ? pettifogger, but which is utterly unwor- 
thy of a man clainiuig to sustain the character of a states- 
man. 

I am aware that many good and worthy citizens desire 

* A full history of this controversy is given in a very able and well 
written pamphlet entitled " Thoughts on the proposed annexation of 
Texas," published last iVpril, and said to have been written by Theo- '^• 
DORE Sedgwick, of New Vork, a gentleman whose name alone is suf- 
ficient to command respect and attention to any thin^ said or written 
by him. His account of the matter referred to in the text, will be 
found from p. 8 to 14 of his pamphlet. 



6 

to acquire Texas, because they believe that an extension of 
territory will be beneficial to the United States. But as 
my objections to annexation are based upon other reasons — 
reasons which have no relation to the question whether it is 
or is not good policy for this government to increase its terri- 
tory, I do not propose to discuss in the abstract that question ; 
but in passing, it may be proper to remark, that while on 
the one hand the idea of embracing in one grand federal 
I'epublic the whole, or nearly the whole, of the North Ameri- 
can continent, united under our liberal form ofgovermnent, 
is fascinating to the ardent imagination of the young American 
patriot ; there arc many sagacious and wise men among us 
who are sincere lovers of our fi'ee institutions, and regard 
with lively sensibility every movement which may endanger 
them, that believe an extension of territory by increasing the 
diversity of local interests,would multiply local jealousies and 
animosities, and thereljy jeopard the permanence of the 
Union. To this objection is added another, which is, that 
we have already a thousand millions of acres of unsold lands, 
that the acquisition of Texas would induce many citizens 
and emigrants to purchase lands there, instead of purchasing 
in states and territories where we now hold lands ; that the 
great quantity of lands which the annexationof Texas would 
force into the market would lessen the price of lands already 
in good faith purchased of the government and paid for by 
our own citizens, and that the same arguments which are 
urged in favor of the annexation of Texas may be urged in 
favor of extending our line so as to include Mexico and 
Central America^; that every individual government must 
from the nature of things, if not from the nature of the gov- 
ernment itself, have its limits, otherAvise by its own weight it 
will crumble to pieces; and that upon the principles on 
which the acquisition of Texas are urged there can be no 
limits to the extension of our territory. 

"Ask Where's the north? at York 'tis on the Tweed — 
In Scotland, at the Orcades ; arnd there 
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where." 

Again, the advocates of annexation, after assuming what 
has not been proved and what has been denied of record by 
the British government, affirm that unless Texas is made a 
part of the United States it will become a colony of Great 
Britain, or at any rate a dependant on her. It has also been 
urged, that smuggling would be encouraged, and Tarift" 
laws would be evaded, and in case of war between the United 



States and England, Texas would present a feasible point 
from which this country would be invaded. 

Many years ago Mr. Monroe announced the doctrine that 
no European power ought thei'eafter to be permitted to 
establish colonies in North America. That proposition re- 
ceived the unanimous approbation of the people of the 
United States. The nations of Europe are now fully aware 
that this is a settled principle in this country. They know 
that an attempt to violate this ride would be regarded by us 
as good cause of war. It will then be time enough, when 
England makes the effort to possess Texas as a colony, to 
resist the consummation of the measure if need be, by aVar ; — 
and in a war thus provoked all hands and all hearts would 
ardently unite. Suppose England does intend colonizing 
Texas, would it not be wise to wait until she affords some 
evidence of such intention, and then at once declare war 
against her 1 Such surely would be the manly and honorable 
course. Or shall we, as the Texan treaty indicates, meanly 
avoid meeting Great Britian as open and honorable enemies, 
and in adastardly mannerviolate our plighted faith, if treaties 
plight faith, with a neighboring sister republic, because she 
is weaker than we? I have heard that the southern citizens 
of this Union are a chivalrous people. Will those of them 
who favor annexation exhibit such a course of conduct as a 
demonstration of southern chivaliy 1 But the official com- 
munications of Mr. Upshur and yourself put this matter at 
rest. You do not claim the annexation of Texas because 
you apprehend it will fall into the hands of the British, but 
solely because you apprehend if it is not annexed slavery 
will be abolished in that country. After this avowal by our 
own government, can there be a sane man in the United 
States who does not know that the story that the British 
intend to possess Texas as a colony is not the merest hum- 
bug which the age has produced 1 

That goods may be smuggled from Texas into the United 
States in violation of our revenue laws is extremely probable, 
and the prevention of such practices will depend on the 
standard of morals held by the citizens on the line between 
the two countries, and on the fidelity and vigilance of our 
revenue officers. But the argument deduced fi-om the proba- 
bdity of smuggling, if it amounts to any thing, proves too 
much. It proves that we ought to have no outside lines ex- 
cept the shores of the ocean. The whole line of our northern 
frontier, highly commercial as that frontier is, is bounded on 
the British colonies. Is it probable that our revenue laws 



8 

will be more fi-equently violated between Texas and Louis- 
ina than between Canada and New Yorki Besides, if 
Texas should be annexed to the U. S. the same, or nearly 
the same, facilities will exist for smuggling goods from 
Mexico into Texas as now does, for smuggling goods jfrom 
Texas into Louisiana or Arkansas. There is nothing in 
this argument. 

Again, we are told that unless we seize the present oppor- 
tunity of annexing Texas whether that country becomes a 
province of England or not, yet, being as it will be, a weak 
power, in a future war with the British, Texas will be a 
point from which an invading enemy will march to subju- 
gate the Union, and general Jackson, or some other person 
in the name of the retired and aged, I will not say superanu- 
ated, warrior, has represented this country as in imminent 
danger of invasion from that quarter. In the ardent imagin- 
ation of the writer of these epistles from the Hermitage, the 
swamps and everglades of Arkansas and Louisiana seem to 
glitter with the arms and bristle with the bayonets of mur- 
derous Britons, all because Texas is not annexed to the 
United States. 

My time has been spent in the humble pursuits of civil 
life, and therefore it becomes not me to speak with confi- 
dence on the best mode of waging war. I will however ven- 
ture to suggest that if Texas is made a part of the Union, in 
case of war with Great Britain, we may be called upon to 
defend that territory, and that the enemy would be as like- 
ly in such an event to take up their line of march from Mex- 
ico to Texas, as in the other from Texas to Lousiana. But 
suppose a war with .England and an attempt at invasioft, 
can any rational man believe that such invasion would be 
commenced by landing an army in Texas, and marching 
it through the wilderness to the Mississippi river 1 It will 
not be forgotten that Great Britain is confessedly mistress of 
the ocean, and that our seacoast, with numerous harbors 
and bays, extends thousands of miles. AVho then believes 
that the British — those same British who less than thirty 
years ago landed an army in the bay of Chesapeake, which 
marched to Washington, ravaged and burnt the president's 
house, destroyed the capitol and returned to their ships in 
safety — the same British whose fleet sailed up the Missis- 
sippi to the city of New Orleans, and there landed an army 
which was defeated by the gallant troops under- the com- 
mand of Gen. Jackson — who, I say, believes that it is fit 
and proper to violate treaties and draw upon us the indigna- 



9 

tion and abhorrance ifnot the contempt of every civilized na- 
tion on the globe, and, as I shall hereafter shew, palpably to 
violate our own constitution which we have sworn tosupporr, 
because forsooth there is danger of an invasion by a Britisii 
army marching from Texas ? Should such visionary ap- 
prehensions be entertained, I should not be surprised if a 
proposition should be made to estabhsh a garrison at Bher- 
ring's straits, with a view to resist a British army which 
might cross on the ice for the purpose of waging a war 
against the United States. 

Another argument in favor of annexation is, that it will as 
is said tend to diminish the evil, and ultimately produce the 
abolition, of slavery. If this position be sound, if the objec- 
tion I shall hereafter make to the constitutional power of the 
government to unite this nation with another could be re- 
moved, then indeed my opposition to annexation would 
cease to exist. But is it true that a union with Texas 
would produce the abolition of slavery in the United States ? 

From a letter written by Mr. Senator Walker to a number 
of citizens in Carrol county, in the state of Kentucky, I 
learn that Mr. Tucker (I presume of Virginia) whose work 
I regret I have not seen, "Has" as Mr. Walker says 
'' demo7istrate(l ih?iX.yn\\nn probably less than eighty years, 
ti-om the density of population in all the slave holding states, 
hired labor would be as abundant as slave labor and all pe- 
cimiary motive for the cojitinuance of slavery would then 
have an end." Hence I presume Mr. Tucker inferred, and 
very fairly inferred, that slavery in these United States would 
be abolished after the lapse of eighty years ; for it will hardly 
be doubted but that when it is for the interest of the slave holder 
to declare his slave a freeman, he will do so, especially since 
by the instantaneous emancipation of the slaves in the West 
Indies, where they constituted an immense and fearful ma- 
jority over the free inhabitants, experience has proved that 
slavery may be abolished without in the least endangering 
the good order and peace of conununity. Now if Mr. Tuck^ 
er's position be true, and that it is true even Mr. Walker ad- 
mits, it is most evident that the extension of the area of 
slave territory will increase the duration of slavery. So 
selt-evident is this, that I should not feel myself justified in 
saying another word on this branch of my subject were it 
not that the assertion that the annexation of Texas would 
expedite and favor the abohtion of slavery has been gravely 
made and extensively circulated among the inhabitants of 
the non-slave-holding states, by men whose elevated political 



10 

stations are calculated to command respect for their opinions 
and confidence in their assertions. 

Mr. Walker, a member of the United States senate from 
the state of Mississippi, in his letter to which I have referred, 
and a committee of the house of representatives of which 
Mr. Pratt of the state of New York was chairman, have 
made these assertions and upon them have founded much of 
their reasoning in support of the treaty of annexation. On 
this account I hope I may be excused for occupying a few 
moments of the reader's time in an examination of the facts 
from which their inferences are made. 

Mr. Pratt, as chairman of the select committee on statis- 
tics to whom was referred the petition of Thomas Earl and 
others in relation to certain supposed errors in the last cen- 
sus, on this petition, a few days before the adjournment of 
congress at their last session, made a report in which he 
made an elaborate argument in favor of the annexation of 
Texas. It is not my business to enquire what were the 
reasons which induced the committee to discuss a subject so 
entirely disconnected with the one referred to them, which 
was simply to enquire and report whether there were or 
were not errors in the returns of the sixth census. In an- 
swer to this enquiry the committee with great naivete mform 
the house that " they have not the means of ascertaining 
whether they" [the eiTors] " really exist or not." After im- 
parting to the house this important intelligence, one Avould 
naturally suppose they would have asked to be discharged 
fi'om the flirther consideration of the petition, instead of 
which they pi'oceed to enlighten the house on various sub- 
jects relating to the resources of the country, and finally 
conclude by recommending the annexation of Texas as 
the most probable means of abolishing slavery in the United 
States. They say (p. 25 of the report) that in 1790 the 
nmnber of slaves in the United States was 697,897, and 
that in 1840 it was 3,487,355. Tbey say that during the 
same period the increase of the whites was in proportion 
greater than the increase of the slaves, not only Avhen the 
whole union was considered, but that a comparison l^etween 
the census of 1830 witli that of 1840 will shew that this was 
also the case with the slave states taken alone during the 
ten intervening years. As the committee assert this to be 
the fact, I must of course admit it to be true, though I have 
not had time to test their accuracy by an examination of the 
census. But were not the committee aware that the states 
of Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 



11 

Missouri and Arkansas had received from 1830 to 1840 
vast accessions to their white population from the free states 
and from Europe 1 Yet for this tliey make no allowance. 
That the slave population increases by natural population 
more rapidly than the white is, as I believe, a fact which 
is generally admitted. The returns of the last census also 
prove this. To shew that it does so, I will refer to a few 
facts which appear from that census, in the statistics of 
South Carolina, a state which is perhaps as little aftected 
by the migration of free whites into it, or importation of 
slaves from other states, as any other state is the Union. 
There were in that state in 1840 of all ages 259,085 free 
whites, and 327,038 slaves. There were under ten years 
ofage 85,568 whites, and under the same age 107,169 slaves. 
Upon the supposition that about as many slaves under the 
age of ten years had within that period of time been sent 
out of the state as whites of the same age, which I think 
may fairly be assumed, this statement shews the relative 
number of whites and slaves born in that state since the 
year 1830. When, therefore, it is considered that during 
the ten years referred to, no slaves were imported into the state 
of South Carolina, and that within that period a consider- 
able number of white persons from Europe and from the 
free states of the Union must have domiciled themselves in 
that state, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the 
increase of the slaves by natural population must, in pro- 
portion to their relative numbers, have been greater than 
that of the whites. The number of whites from 20 years 
old to 60 is given, and it amounts to 101,539 ; but the num- 
ber of slaves within those particular ages is not given. An 
accurate comparison of increase cannot therefore be made 
from that data, but the number of slaves from 24 to 55 years 
ofage is given, and amounts to 108,116. From these facts 
it seems evident that the increase of slaves by natural pop- 
ulation is greater than that of the whites, for while within 
the last ten years but 85,568 free white children had been 
born who in 1840 were living, there were living of slaves 
which had been born during the same pei'iod 107,169. And 
yet Mr. Pratt asserts that the increase of the whites is more 
rapid than that of the blacks. The committee do not even 
advert to these important facts and considerations, but as if 
they had proved the fact which they assume, proceed to draw 
the following inference from it. 

"It follows therefore " say they "as effect follows cause, 
that the time will arrive when slavery will altogether cease 



1-2 

hy being gradually swallowed %ip in the preponderating lohite 
jiupulation.^^ Now as in South Carolina the annual increase 
of the whites is 8557, and the annual increase of the slaves is 
10717; will the Honorable Mr. Pratt of Prattsville, chair- 
man of the Statistical Committee in Congress inform us 
how long it will be before the slave population in that region 
" Mill be swallowed up by the j)repund crating white popula- 
tion !" "These views of the case," say the committee, 
" particularly the fact that the addition of Louisiana and 
Florida has not had a tendency to increase slavery, but that 
the rei^ult so far has been directly the reverse, appear to have 
a very close connection with the (at present) nuicli debated 
subject, the annexation of Texas to the United States." 

Is it true that the addition of Louisiana and Florida to the 
Union has not had a tendency to increase slavery, and that 
the result has been directly the reverse"? In Mr. Pratt's re- 
port (p. 24) he states the whole number of slaves in the U. S. 
in the year 1800, which was before the admission of Louisiana 
into the Union, to be 893,041, and that in 1840, there were 
2,428,921 slaves owned l)y the people of the United States. 
From this number, however, are to be deducted 256,527 
slaves in Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas, leaving the 
present number of slaves in the Union as it was in 1840, at 
2,230,828. I make no account of the 25,717 slaves now in 
Florida, as that number may be fairly offset against the slaves 
held in Louisiana and Florida at the respective times of their 
admission into the Union. It then appears that from 1800 
to 1840, the slaves in the States of the Union as it was in 
1800 increased from 893,041 to 2,230,828, and this witliout 
deducting from the number of slaves in 1800, some forty 
thousand slaves Avhich have since been emancipated in New 
York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It further appears 
that the increase of slaves in the States, exclusive of Louis- 
iana, &.C., in tJie last forty years, has been equal to 150 per 
cent; that is, where there was forty years ago 100 slaves, 
there are now 2.50; and this result Mr. Pratt thinks, proves 
that the extension of slave territory will annihilate slavery! 
His system of political Ilomceopathy will not, I imagine, pre- 
vail. The quackery is quite too palpable. 

Does not every one know that slavery, from the redundancy 
of slave population, would long before this time have been 
abolished in Virginia and the Carolinas, had it not been for 
the '' safety valve'' spoken of by Mr. Walker, furnished by 
the market for slaves in Louisiana, Alabama and the other 
new states ! 



1^ 

The committee go on to say, that "they wish to allude to 
this subject" [the annexation of Texas] "only so far as it is 
connected with slavery, and in relation to its bearing upon 
the statistics connected therewith. Viewing the annexation 
of Texas in this connection, the committee have come to the 
conclusion" (very logically !) " that all other objections being 
removed, the question of slavery, and all matters connected 
with it, will not ofter any valid objection to the union ; on 
the contrary, this union would operate favorably upon that 
question in all its bearings, and your committee would regard 
such union as one of the means Providence has ordaincA for 
gradually freeing our country from this dangerous ingredient 
in its social comjjosition, ! I" 

The committee then go on to state, in the following words, 
chiefly taken from Mr. Walker's letter, whose reasoning they 
adopt, the grounds upon which they have arrived at this 
extraordinary conclusion. "Mr. Senator Walker's state- 
ments upon this subject (see his letter to the people of Carroll 
county, Kentucky) are deserving of very serious attention. 

" Since the purchase of Louisiana and Florida," says Mr. 
Walker, "and the settlement of Alabama and Mississippi, 
there have been carried into this region, as the census demon- 
strates, from the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
and Kentucky, half a million of slaves, including their de- 
scendants, that otherwise would now be within the limits of 
those four states." " Now, if we double the rate of diminu- 
tion, as we certainly will by the reannexation of Texas, 
slavery will disappear from Delaware in ten years, and from 
Maryland in twenty, and have greatly diminished in Virginia 
and Kentucky." "In the District of Columbia, it would 
disappear in twelve years." "As slavery advances in Texas, 
it must recede to the same extent from the more northern of 
the slaveholding States ; and, consequently, the evU to the 
northern States, from the expulsion into them of free blacks, 
by abolition, gradual or immediate, would thereby be greatly 
mitigated, if not entirely prevented." " This reannexation, 
then, would oidy change the locality of the slaves, and of the 
slaveholding States, without augmenting their number.^'' "As 
regards the slaves, the African being from a tropical climate, 
his comforts and condition would be greatly improved by a 
transfer from northern latitudes to the genial and most salu- 
brious climate of Texas." " By the reannexation of Texas, 
as the number of free blacks augmented in the slave States, 
they would be diffused gradually through Texas into Mexico 
and Central and Southern America, where nine-tenths of 



14 

the present population are already of the colored races ; 
and where, from their vast preponderance in number, they 
are not a degraded caste, but upon a footing, not merely of 
legal, but, what is far more important, of actual eqrui^lity witli 
the rest of the population." " The process (of diliiision) will 
be gradual and progressive, without a shock, without a con- 
vulsion ; whereas, bythe loss of Texas, and the imprisonment 
of the slave population of the Union within its present limits, 
slavery uwnld increase in nearly all the slaveholding States, 
and a change in their condition would become impossible ; 
or, if it did take place by sudden or gradual abolition, the 
resvdt would as certainly be the sudden or gradual introduc- 
tion of hundreds of thousands of free blacks into the States 
of the north." "There is but one way in which the north 
can escape this evil — and that is the reannexation of Texas, 
which is the only safety-valve for the whole Union, and the 
only practicable outlet for the African population, through 
Texas, into Mexico and Central and Southern America. 
There, is a congenial climate for the African race." " There, 
the boundless and almost unpeopled territory of Mexico, and 
Central and Southern America, with its delicious climate 
and most prolific soil, renders most easy the means of sub- 
sistence; and there they would not be a degraded caste, but 
■equals among equals, not only by law, but by feeling and 
association." 

The committee, or rather Mr. Walker, as quoted by the 
•committee, then enquire, "Is slavery never to disappear from 
the Union? This," say they, "is a startling and moment- 
ous question, but the answer is easy and the proof is clear;" 
and the following is their answer and their proof! 

" It will certainly disappear if Texas is reannexed to the 
Union, not by abohtion but slowly and gradually by diffu- 
sion, as it has already thus nearly receded from several of 
the more northern of the slaveholding States, and as it will 
continue thus more rapidly to recede by the reannexation 
of Texas ; and finally, in the distant future, without a shock, 
without abolition, without a convulsion, disappear into and 
through Texas, into IMexico, and Central and Southern 
America." "Beyond the Del Norte, slavery will not pass; 
not only because it is forbidden by law, but because the 
colored races there preponderate in the ratio of ten to one 
over the whites ; and holding, as they do, the government 
and most of the offices in their own possession, - they will 
never permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored 
race, which makes and executes the laws of the country." 



15 

" Mexico, Central America, and South America, contain 
together an area of 8,376,000 square miles, and a popula- 
tio^ii of 24,000,000; of whom about 2,700,000 are white, 
and the rest Indians, Africans, mulattoes, and other colored 
races." 

"The outlet for our negro race, through this vast region, 
can never be opened but by the reannexation of Texas ; 
but, in that event, there, in that extensive country, (Mexico, 
Central and South America,) bordering upon our negro 
population, and four times greater in area than the whole 
Union, with a sparse population of but three to the square 
mile, where nine-tenths of the population is of the colored 
races; — there, upon that fertile soil, and in that delicious 
chmate, so admirably adapted to the negro race, as all ex- 
perience has clearly proved, the free black would find a 
home. There, also, as slaves, in the lapse of time, from the 
density of population and other causes, are emancipated, 
they will disappear fi-om time to time west of the Del Norte, 
and beyond the limits of the Union, among a race of their 
own color ; will be diffused throughout this vast region, 
where they will not be a degraded caste, and where, as to 
climate, and social and moral condition, and all the hopes and 
comforts of life, they can occupy, among equals, a position 
they can never attain in any part of this Union." 

The committee, it will be perceived, adopting the views of 
Mr. Walker, contend, that if Texas is annexed to the Union 
the present slave states will be gradually drained of their 
slave population, and that as the republic of Mexico does not 
tolerate slavery, the whole slave population in the United 
States, after the anticipated annexation of Texas, will from 
the benevolent spirit of the slave holders, be permitted to 
escape to Mexico, where we are told they will instantly be 
transformed into usefid and respectable citizens. 

I shall make but two brief remarks on this extraordinary 
reasoning of Mr. Walker and the committee. The first 
is upon the allegation that they in substance make, that the 
demand for slaves to supply the large territory of Texas, 
(said to be so large that forty states of the dimensions of 
Massachusetts might be fonned out of it,) and the other new 
states of the Union, will drain all the slaves from the north- 
ern slave holding states. Does past experience warrant 
such an anticipation ? Mr. Walker himself puts forth the 
astoundinof fact, that since the purchase of Louisiana the 
States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky, have 
raised and sold out of those States a half a million of slaves ! 



16 

and yet, has the slave population in those States diminished 1 
It has, it is true, slightly diminished in Delaware and Mary- 
land, but from causes other than those assigned by Mr. 
Walker.* In Virginia, the lunnber of slaves in 1790, was 
29:3,000 — in 1840, there were in that State, 448,987 — In the 
States of Tennessee and Kentucky, according to Mr. 
Pratt's report, there were in 1800 in both States only 53,927 
slaves, and in 1840, tliei-c were in the State of Kentucky 
alone, as appears fi-om the census, 181,548 slaves. Ex- 
perience, then, proves most clearly the falsehood of the 
theory of Mr. Walker and the conunittee. 

I submit one other consideration. — That the increased de- 
mand for an article should, in a country occupied by a sa- 
gacious people, decrease the production of it, is a new 
proposition in political economy. The public will, I am 
sure, assign to the committee, and to Mr. Walker, their dis- 
tinguished jiioneer, the honor of having discovered it. Will 
an increased demand, and the rise of the price of sheep and 
cattle in New England, drain the states of Ohio and New 
York of their sheep and cattle 1 Far otherwise. An in- 
creased demand for sheep and wool will increase sheep 
growing in those states — the jjrice will be raised and a sur- 
plus for exportation will be produced. Does the great 
number of Spanish hides consumed by Mr. Pratt and other 
tanners in the state of New York diminish the number of cat- 
tle raised in South America 1 Every body knows the ef- 
fect is directly the reverse. Every man knows — Mr. Walk- 
er and Mr. Pratt knew — that increased demand and con- 
sequently the increase of price for slaves which the annex- 
ation of Texas would occasioji,t would increase the busi- 
ness of negro growing in the northern slave states, with a view 
to the sale of them to the Texans, always retaining in the 
latter states a sufficient luunber to perform the slave labor 
required to be performed there. The sale of the surplus 
would constitute the " safety valve^'' s})oken of by Mr. 
Walker. This safety valve would prevent a redundancy 
of slave population, and in this way, and this way only, can 
slavery be perpetuated. 

♦Iliavi' not at ])rf!sent the statement before nie, Imt if I recollect 
rightly, tlie diminution in both those states is about 20. UOO. Delaware 
can hardly be said to be a slave state. 

t It was reported, and is generally believed, that witl)in'a few days 
after it was known tliat !\Ir. Tyler had concluded a treaty for the an- 
nexation of Texas, the price of slaves rose from 20 to 30 per cent. 



17 

Away then with this delusive and false pretence. A re- 
spect for the official stations of these gentleiaen, restrains 
me from characterizing- this allegation as it deserves. It is 
unworthy even of the appellation of sophistry. And I hope 
the gentlemen who tavor annexation Avill be content with 
voting down their o]jponents, and not add to that injury a 
gross insult to our common sense. 

The other assertion of the conmiittee on which I propose 
to remark is, that in which they alledge that the annexation 
of Texas is necessary for the purpose of enabling the slaves 
to escape into Mexico. 

If the object is to furnish a southern countiy adjoining the 
United States, to which slaves can flee fi-om their masters 
and be free, why not permit Texas to become what if not 
annexed to the Union it is said (as I shall presently show by 
Gen. Lamar's letter to the citizens of Macon in Georgia) she 
will be, in case she is not annexed to the United States, to 
wit, a non-slaveholding State 1 Texas in that case would 
be, what Mr. Walker and his endorser, Mr. Pratt, says 
Mexico will be if Texas is annexed, — orif there are likely 
to be too many whites in Texas to suit the views of Mr. 
Walker, I assure him that the slaves running from their 
masters will readily wend their way through the fi-ee State 
of Texas to Mexico, which, according to Mr. Walker, is the 
Eldorado of the colored population of North America. These 
outgivings of Mr. Walker must have been intended more for 
the latitude of New England, New York, New Jersey, &c., 
than for that of Kentucky. The notion that when Texas 
becomes a part of the Union and is erected into some half a 
dozen slave states, the ten or twenty millions of slaves which 
will then be held south of the Potomac, will by their masters, 
be permitted to escape and ensconce themselves in Mexico, 
is too visionary, not to say too ridiculous, to merit serious 
animadversion ; and I turn with pleasure from these dis- 
gusting, because palpably false and fraudulent representa- 
tions, to the true reasons for annexing Texas to the United 
States, as frankly avowed by Gen. Lamar, late president of 
Texas, and by yourself and those persons acting under your 
instructions. This open avowal by you of the real motives 
for the measure, was what I anticipated, and what the 
American public expected from the known candor and high 
and honorable bearing so long witnessed and so universally 
and desen edly admired in John C. Calhoun. 

Gen. Lamar, late President of Texas, in his letter address- 
ed to a meeting of the citizens of Macon, in Georgia, in the 



18 • 

month of August last, urges the annexation of Texas almost 
solely on the ground that it will secure and perpetuate the 
institution of slavery in the southern States of the Union. 
The object of his reasoning is to establish among others the 
following propositions : — 

1. That without annexation, slavery will be abolished in 
Texas, not by its becoming a British colony, but by the 
voluntary desire of the people, expressed through the polls 
of the election. 

2. If Texas abolishes slaveiy the institution cannot exist 
for more than half a century in the United States. 

3. Annexation will secure and perpetuate slavery both in 
Texas and the United States, and for that reason he urges 
annexation. 

In proof of the first proposition, I quote the following 
paragraph from page 10 of the address of Gen. Lamar: — 

"For the last few years, the want of peace with Mexico, 
and the consequent idea of insecurity to negro property, has 
ari'ested emigration almost entirely from the southern portion 
of the United States, whilst the influx of emigrants fi-om 
Europe has been continuous and great, and is still increasing; 
so that if this state of things continue without interruption 
for any length of time, the anti-slavery party in Texas will 
acquire the asc(indancy, and may iiot only abolish slavery 
by a constitutional vote, but may change the whole character 
of the constitution itself 

At present the anti-slavery party is in the minority, but 
it would be dangerous even now to agitate the question with 
much violence; for the majority of the people of Texas are 
not the owners of slaves ; and I do not see why all such 
might not be lured into an acquiescence of a gradual eman- 
cipation for the sake of independence." 

Again, in page 11, Gen. Lamar says," abolition in Texas 
would be unaccompanied with danger." He says in page 
15, that "Texas if left to stand a lone, there is everv proba- 
bility that slavery will be abandoned in that country,* * * *." 
" The negroes in that country are yet but few in number, 
and would be emancipated in the country %vtthout the slightest 
inconvenience, and indeed would continue to be nsefiilin 
the capacity of hirelings ; but at page 14 he says, that in 
the Southern States, on the contrary, their hopes of safety 
and prosperity are founded on the institution of slavery." 

In support of the second proposition. Gen. Lamai* says in 
his address (page 15,) "that a half a century will not roll 
away before the slaves will so accumulate and the lands so 



19 

decline in fertility, that this species of property will not only 
cease to be profitable, but will become a burden to its owners." 

With respect to the influence of annexation on the pres- 
ervation of slavery in the United States, the General says, 
(page 17,) "I doubt not it will be readily admitted by every 
candid mind, that the annexation of Texas to the American 
Union would contribute greatly to the wealth and glory of the 
country at large, and that in relation to the southern States 
in particular, it would not only increase their importance, 
but it would give stability and safety to their domestic insti- 
tutions, and thereby save them fokkvek from the unparalleled 
calamities of abolitio7i." In page 43, he says, "being how- 
ever fully satisfied that without the advantages of slavery, 
Texas can never be a nation of any great inportance or 
prosperity, and believing that her union with the United 
States will give permanency to that institution in both coun- 
tries, I have discussed the subject mainly upon this principle." 

Can any man fail to perceive that tlie grounds on which 
Gen. Lamar advocates annexation are directly adverse to 
the grounds on which Messrs. Walker, Pratt &.Co. support 
it? And after what has been said, can any one doubt that 
the former is arguing in good faith, and that the latter are 
presenting views not their own, but made " to order," to 
hoodwink and delude the good people north of Mason and 
Dixon's line'? I hope their good sense will save them 
from such miserable attempts at fi-aud and deception. 

The views expressed by yourself, sir, in your ofiicial com- 
munication to Mr. Packenham, on the 18th day of last April, 
seem to me in accordance with those of general Lamar. 
With characteristic fairness and candor you make no pre- 
tensions that the treaty of annexation had been negotiated 
to prevent Texas from becoming an English colony, but on 
the contrary you openly and distinctly avow that the object 
was to prevent the abolition of slavery by the Texan gov- 
ernment, with a view more effectually to secure the safety and 
permanence of the institution of slavery in the slave holding 
states of the Union ; and in this avowal you are fully sup- 
ported by your predecessor, Mr. Upshur, in his correspond- 
ence with the diplomatic agents of the United States. 

I cannot persuade myself that a single word more need 
be said in reply to the arguments urged to the people of the 
northern and middle states in favor of annexation, and I 
therefore proceed to state the reasons why, in my judgment, 
Texas ought Jiot to be annexed to the United States ; and 
as I have, I fear, detained the reader so long iu answering 



20 

the arguments in favor of ainiexation as to oxliaust liis pa- 
tience, I hope to make him some amends by stating- with 
great brevity my objections to the measure. 

In the performance of this undertaking I shall not notice 
the objection arising from the assumption by this govern- 
ment of the debt now due from Texas, but I shall leave 
those who in common with myself believe it unconstitutional 
and inexpedient for this nation to assume the debts of any 
of the states of this Union, to make and urge that objection ; 
nor shall I remark on the delusive hope held out that the 
repayment of the debt of Texas will ultimately be effected 
by the avails of the sales of the public lands held by that 
government — lands, the greater part of which, if not all, 
that are suitable for cultivation, have been heretofore grant- 
ed to individuals and companies, first by Spain, afterwards 
by Mexico, and lastly by the Texan government, as has 
been ably shewn by Mr. Benton, of the senate, in his mas- 
terly and statesmanlike speech on that subject ; nor shall I 
repeat the objections contained in the letter of Mr. Clay, 
addressed fi-om North Carolina to the editors of the National 
Intelligencer, and the letter of Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Ham- 
met, dated on the 20th day of last April. These letters, and 
especially that of Mr. Van Buren, prove that Texas, having 
originally been apart of the republic of Mexico, and that 
government still claiming jurisdiction over it, cannot be 
seized by the United States while we are at peace with the 
Mexican republic, and treaty obligations exist between us, 
without involving so palpable a violation of the laws of na- 
tions as will merit exclusion from the pale of the civilized 
and christian nations of the world. I could add nothing, 
were I to attempt it, to the able and impressive views which 
have been presented by the distinguished gentlemen to 
whom I have alluded, as well as by many others. These 
objections, however, are in their nature temporary, and ca- 
pable of being removed by a change of circumstances. I 
contend, and I hope to be able to prove, that Texas, neither 
at the present or any future period, can become a part .of the 
United States without an alteration of our constitution ; and 
that even then she ought not to be admitted without arestric- 
tion against slave holding and slave representation. If to- 
morrow Mexico were to acknowledge the independence of 
Texas, and if Texas were entirely free fi-om debt, my ob- 
jections to annexation would not be obviated or itiaterially 
affected. These objections are — 

I. Annexation is unconstitutional. 



21 

The power to annex another nation to the United States,^ 
and in this way make one nation by the amalgamation of 
two, is claimed by virtue of the first clause of the third sec- 
tion of the fourth article of the constitution ot the United 
States. It is in the words following :— • , • 

" New states may be admitted by the congress mto this 
Union ; but no new state shall be formed or erected within 
the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed 
by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without 
the consent of the legislature of the states concerned, as well 
as of Congress." The very next clause, and which indeed 
is a part of the same third section, provides that " Congress 
shall have power to dispose of and to make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the territories or other property 
belonging to the United States." 

Before I proceed to the examination of the merits of the 
question arising under this section, it may be well to remark, 
that the advocates of annexation claim that this question 
has been decided by the admission of Louisiana and the 
Floridas into the Union. To this I reply, that the cases are 
not parallel ; that in both these cases it was a mere question 
of the extension of boundaries by the consent of the respective 
nations who owned these territories. Louisiana included 
the mouth of the Mississippi and the city of New Orleans, 
which was and is the great place of deposit and the only 
outlet for the immense productions of that part of the United 
States west of the Allegany mountains. A proposition was 
made to extend the boundaries of the United States so as to 
include the Mississippi, and thereby secure forever the free 
navigation of it, and upon an ofl^jr made by France to cede 
the whole of Louisiana to us, it was accepted. This, togeth- 
er Fith the cession of Florida, which was made under cir- 
cumstances I need not detail, but which are fresh in the 
recollection of all, presented a very different case from that 
of a negociation with an independent nation for the purpose of 
a union, and finally of forming an entire nation and the 
United States into one nation. I am aware that when the 
advocates of annexation are pressed on this subject, they 
say, that Texas is a part of Mexico, that its inhabitants were 
oppressed by their own government, and now appeal to us 
for protection, but when met with the answer that it is not 
competent for the United States, after having solemnly ac- 
knowledged Texas to be an independent nation— after 
having formed treaties with her as such, and sent and re- 
ceived from her diplomatic agents, to deny that she is an 



2-2 

independent nation : and tliat, on tlie otlier hand, if Texas 
is a part of Mexico, we have no better riglit to make a treaty 
of annexation with its inhabitants tlian liad Mr. Van Buren 
in 1837, to make a treaty for the annexation of Canada 
witli the Canadian patriots ; these advocates again shift 
their ground, and declare Texas to be an inde])endent na- 
tion. Tlie question, then, is not as^in the case of Louisiana 
and Florida, whether the United States, by the consent of 
the power owiung the tei'ritory adjoining them, have a right 
to extend their boundaries, but whether the treaty making 
power, or congress, have a right to annihilate this nation by 
incorporating it with another, or, wliich is the same thing, 
by incorporating another nation with this. But I deny that 
congress possessed the constitutional power of purchasing- 
Louisiana and erecting it into one of the states of this repub- 
lic. True, the act has been done, and has been so long 
acquiesced in, that the arrangement cannot and ought not 
after forty years acquiesence to be disturbed. But I pro- 
test against citing one breach of the constitution to justify 
another. If this were tolerated, the whole constitution might 
be destroyed by legislative and judicial decisions. It is 
now an indisputable historical fact, that Mr. Jefferson, under 
whose directions the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana 
was negotiated, after it was signed, expressed an opinion 
that that territory could not become a part of the United 
States without an amendment to the constitution orantinof 
to congress that specific power. In his letter to Mr. Breck- 
enridge, dated August 13th, 1803, speaking of the treaty for 
the purchase of Louisiana, he uses this unequivocal lan- 
guage : — " The constitution has made no provision for our 
holding foreign territory — still less for incorporating foreign 
nations into our Union //" But such were the advantages 
and necessity of the purchase, and so universal was the ap- 
probation of the measure, that a majority of congress thought 
it unnecessary to incur the delay which would have been 
necessary in order to procure an amendment of the consti- 
tution ; and Mr. Jefferson finally yielded — and this act, 
done under such cireumstances, is now cited as an evidence 
of constitutional law, and claimed as a binding precedent in 
all coming time. Surely the democratic party in this na- 
tion will not contend that a precedent can add any power to 
congress not granted in the constitution. A charter for a 
United States Bank has several times been granted by con- 
gress, sometimes when federal and sometimes when demo- 
cratic majorities controlled that body, and at one time as a 



23 

federal and another as a democratic measure ; it has been 
approved by several presidents belonging- to adverse politi- 
cal parties ; it has been sanctioned by the supreme court of 
the United States, and a United States Bank under those 
laws has existed among us for more than forty years, and yet 
it is now the settled doctrine of the democratic party that the 
granting of such charter was unconstitutional. The re- 
newal of the charter of the last bank was defeated, and if a 
new company should at this moment apply for a charter, 
it would also be denied, principally on the ground of its un- 
constitutionality, all the precdents I have cited to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

The question in the present case is, has the treaty making 
power, or has congress, the right to annex another nation to 
this, or this nation to another, under the third section of the 
fourth article 1 A moment's reflection will satisfy the most 
common mind, that whether the nation to be annexed con- 
tains eighty thousand or eighty millions of inhabitants, or 
whether such nation happens to be contiguous, or is situated 
in Europe, or in Asia, can have no bearing on this great 
question of constitutional law. 

The convention of 1789, formed the instrument which 
we call a constitution for the then thirteen independent 
States and the north western territory, being the same tract 
of country designated in the treaty with Great Britain con- 
cluded in 1783. The members of that convention foresaw 
that some of the States, when their whole territory should 
be occupied by civilized inhabitants, would be larger than 
convenience would require; and there was an extensive 
territory west of the mountain, then a wilderness, which they 
anticipated would soon be inhabited by citizens of the 
United States. This territory had been ceded by Virginia, 
New York, and other States, to the confederacy, and was, 
therefoi-e, held in common by all the States of the Union, 
and was of course not then divided and erected into states. 
As the instrument, the convention were then forming con- 
tained a provision that all powers not expressly granted to 
the new government were in terms reserved to the States or 
to the people, it became necessary to vest congress with the 
power, when a state should become inconveniently large, 
to erect it into two or more States ; and when the territory 
owned by the confederacy should be occupied, to erect that 
into so many States as congress should deem proper. For 
these purposes, and it seems evident to me for none other, 
they declared that " new States may be admitted by congress 



24 

into the Union;" but, in order clearly to show that their atten- 
tion was confined to the territory then held by the Union, they 
as it were in the same breath say, that no State shall be 
divided or dismembered without its consent ; and in the 
same section they confer on congress the power of making 
regulations respecting the territories. What plain common 
sense man can read this section and suspect, or even imagine, 
that its authors dreamed of conferring on congress the power 
of annexing this nation to another? And yet Mr. Van 
Buren, in his letter to Mr. Hammet, infers, because ]Mr. 
Edmund Randolph proposed the resolution that provision 
ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising 
within the limits of the United States, and because when 
the subject of that resolution was acted upon by the con- 
vention the words used in the third section happened to be 
preferred to the words contained in Mr. Randolph's resolu- 
tion, that the convention intended to vest congress with the 
power of admitting any and all foreign States into this 
Union — aye, that a bare majority in congress should have 
the power to "rc-awnex" the United States to Great Britain, 
and thus fiirnish us with the comfortable prospect of electing 
for a president of the new moddled United States, a legiti- 
mate descendant of the royal George. I am aware that this 
is supposing an extreme case, but I submit that Mr. Van 
Buren's construction of the third section might by possibility 
lead to the result I have imagined. Mr. Van Buren does 
not inform us of the reasons why the words in the section 
were substituted for the words contained in Mr. Randolph's 
resolution ; but in the aDsence of such information I will 
venture to predict, that if the debates on that clause could 
be furnished us, it would be rendered evident that the con- 
vention adopted the section as it is, because they considered 
that its words expressed Mr. Randolph's intention with 
greater brevity, and equally as clear as those used in his res- 
olution. 

Mr. Van Buren infers that the convention intended to vest 
congress with the power of incorporating foreign states with 
the Union, because the articles of confederation contained 
a clause, " That Canada, acceding to the confederation, 
shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of 
this Union." This he cites as " one link in the chain of ev- 
idence" of the real intention of the convention of 1789. — 
Surely Mr. Van Buren was aware that the articles of con- 
federation were formed in July, 1778, in the midst of the 
revolutionary war — that before and sometime after the com- 



25 

mencement of that war, it was expected that Canada would 
join the United States in the contest for independence, and 
that neo-otiations were for a long time carried on to effect 
that desn-able object. It was, tlierefore, wise and politic, 
when the articles of confederation were devised and adopted, 
to leave a door open for the entrance of Canada into the 
Union, provided she would "join in the measures of the 
United States" by becoming a party to the war then waged 
against Great Britain. One cannot avoid being astonished 
that so eminent a lawyer and statesman as Mr. Van 
Buren undoubtedly is, should, on a great question of con- 
stitutional law, urge a clause framed at the time wad for the 
purpose for which this clause was framed and adopted, " as 
a link in the chain" of evidence of the intention of a con- 
vention which met seven or eight years after Great Britain 
had acknowledged our independence, and when the circum- 
cumstances of all the parties had materially changed. 

Mr. Van Buren seems aware that the power, which he 
contends is vested in congress, is a dangerous power, and 
that propositions of annexation under it might be made " of 
a character so unwise and improvident as to strike the minds 
of all with repugnance ;" but he intimates that the responsi- 
bility of the representative to his constituents will afford a 
sutficient guarantee against any very flagrant abuse in the 
exercise of it. If the responsibility of which Mr. Van Buren 
speaks is sufficient to restrain improvident and unjust legis- 
lation, no constitution can in any case be necsssary. On 
the contrary, a constitution Avould be an embarrassing and 
worse than useless clog on the legislator. The only use of 
a constitution is to rendervoid unwise and corrupt legislation. 
All the fine spun and ingenious reasoning of Mr. Van 
Buren seems to me most effectually overturned, and every 
" /m^" in his "cAarn" dissevered by the following brief 
sentence written by Thomas Jefferson, and contained in 
one of his letters to Wilson Cary Nicholas. 

"When I consider," says that truly great man, "that the 
limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty 
of 1783, that the constitution expressly declares itself to be 
made for the United States, I cannot help believing the 
intention was not to permit congress to admit into the Union 
new States lohich should not be formed out of the territory 
for which and under whose authority alone they were then 
acting." 

It cannot be denied, that if congress have the power to 
annex tlie nation of Texas to the United States, they have 
4 



2G 

also the power, by a bare majority of one in each House, to 
annex the Empire of Germany, or the kingdom of France, 
or that of Great Britain, or all of them, to the United States. 
Let me ask, in all soberness, who will contend that such a 
power constitutionally exists? If it does not, then the man 
who votes for the annexation of Texas violates his oath to 
God and his country. 

II. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas, because it 
will extend slavery beyond our present borders, will increase 
to an incalculable amount the number of human beings who 
will be the victims of that institution, and will perpetuate it 
in the United States. That such will be the ettect of this 
measure, I think I have already proved; but if I have not, 
your own views, publickly expressed, and those of General 
Lamar, late President of Texas, seem to me decisive on the 
subject. But while I honor the candor and frankness which in- 
duced the open and unreserved declaration of your sentiments 
contained in your letter to Mr. Packenham, I cannot but 
regret that you should in part have founded your argument 
in favor of slavery upon a vague and uncertain, not to say a 
false basis — I mean the returns of the officers who took the 
census of 1840. 

In proof of the position that the colored race, when eman- 
cipated, degenerate, you assert, that from those returns a 
much larger proportion of fi*ee colored people are mutes, 
idiots, or insane, than are to be found among the same race 
who are slaves. It may be true that the proportion of 
mutes, insane persons, &c., is greater among the fi-ee blacks 
than among the slaves ; but it is by uo means true, to the 
extent represented by the returning officers of the census. 
Upon a careful examination of those returns, it will be 
found that the most palpable and gross (though 1 hope not 
intentional) errors have been committed; and what is quite 
singular is, that these errors are in a great degree confined 
to the accounts given of the colored population of the non- 
slaveholding states. In eleven towns in the state of Maine, 
the whole number of colored people is stated at seven, and 
yet in these same towns are returned five blind and six deaf 
and dumb colored persons. In nine towns in the state of 
Indiana, the whole colored population is stated at nine, 
while the mutes and blind are stated at nineteen!, &c. (fee. 
[See document No. .580, report to the H. R. June 17, 1844.] 
I pray you not to believe that I intend to insinuate that you, 
sir, had any reason to suspect that the data on which you 
based your reasoning were incorrect. Far from it. I know 



27 

you are incapable of assuming false or even suspicious data, 
but I merely state the fact that you have reasoned from a 
supjiosed state of facts which you believed existed, but which 
in truth did not. 

I stUl more regret, that in another capacity and on a dif- 
ferent theatre, you have countenanced and supported the 
assertion, boldly made by Gen. Lamar, that "the system 
of servitude, as it exists in the southern states and in Texas 
is the best relation which has been established between the 
laboring and governing portion of mankind." I have 
always been taught, and still believe, that labor, — manual 
labor, is honorable ; that we owe a deep obligation to the 
producing class of community, of whom the hired laborer 
constitutes apart; and I assure you, sir, that instead of 
degrading that portion of our citizens, it has been the con- 
stant eifort of the benevolent and patriotic among us to 
elevate them by aflbrding the greatest possible facilities and 
encouragement for the improvement by a good education of 
the minds and morals of the whole mass of the rising genera- 
tion ; and I cannot but think, that, were you among us, you 
yourself, from the generous and benevolent emotions of 
your own heart, would be one of the most zealous and effi- 
cient in the good work. The manual laborers in the State 
of New York probably constitute more than nine-tenths of 
the electors, who, by their votes, dispose either directly or 
indirectly of all the public offices; so that instead of being, 
as Gen. Lamar seems to suppose, the "governed," they are 
in fact the " governing" portion of our community. 

I am compelled to add, that I regret most especially that 
you, sir, in the middle of the nineteenth century, speaking 
in the name and as the organ of the people of the United 
States, should declare to the world that a species of slavery 
known to be more degrading and brutalizingthan the slavery 
tolerated by either Greece or Rome, or the villainage which 
existed in Europe during the darkest period of the iron 
despotism of the feudal system, was "in reality a political 
institution essential to the honor, safety and prosperity of 
those states of the Union in which it exists." Believing, as 
I do, that slavery whenever and wherever it exists is an un- 
mixed evil, and a flagrant violation of the rights of humanity, 
as one of the citizens of this country, though an humble one, 
I solemnly protest against the sentiment, and I affirm that 
it is in direct opposition to the principles and views of a large 
majoriy of the people of these United States. 

It being proved by the official communications of Mr. 



•28 

Upshur, and admitted by yourself, that the great, and as 1 
understand the correspondence, the only object which in- 
duced the treaty of annexation, was to prevent the emancipa- 
tion of the slaves in Texas, and thereby ensure the safety 
and perpetuity of the institution of slavery in the United 
States, the only question which remains to be considered is, 
Is slavery a moral and political evil 1 

But Iwill not attempt to discuss this question. If the 
solemn asseveration of the authors of the declaration of inde- 
pendence be true, that " all men are created equal, that 
they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable 
rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit 
ot happiness" — if the opinion of an immense majority of the 
civilized iidiabitants of the globe is not founded in error, if 
the experience of all ages has demonstrated the demoral- 
izing, corrupting and blighting eftects of slavery in all socie- 
ties in Avhich it has been tolerated, if in fact it be self-evident 
to every mind not biassed by education or rendered impal- 
pable to truth by self interest, that slavery is an unmixed 
evil, and that its toleration is a sin against nature and nature's 
God, then I am quite sure that nothing which I can say, 
will convince you or the public that the question whether 
slavery is an evil ought to be answered in the affirmative. 

If, then, slavery be a political and moral evil of the great- 
est magnitude, if annexation tends directly to increase and 
perpetuate that evil, and if the most intelhgent fi-iends of an- 
nexation support that measure, for the sole reason that it 
will increase and perpetuate slavery in Texas and the Uni- 
ted States — is the congress of this Union, and especially are 
Its members who have been chosen from the firee states, pre- 
pared to support it? that is to say, are they prepared to sup- 
port by their votes a measure whose principal if not sole ob- 
ject is to increase and perpetuate slavery ? This question 
they must answer to their constituents and to their own con- 
sciences. 

III. When, in 1789, the constitution was formed and rati- 
fied, the non slave holding states, in consideration that the 
slave holding states would consent to be taxed in proportion 
to their representation in the national legislature, agreed 
that the latter description of states should be entitled to a 
representation on account of their slaves, in the proportion 
of five slave to three free inhabitants. In pursuance of this 
compact. South Carolina, at a ratio of 70,680 free inhabi- 
tants for one representative, with, according to the last cen- 
sus a free population of 267,361, and a slave population of 



29 

327,038, sends to the house of representatives seven mem- 
bers, whereas, with a population of 2,428,921 free hihabi- 
tants, New York is represented by thirty four members only. 
Hence it is apparent, that while 71,438 inhabitants of New 
York are entitled to one member only, in South Carolina 
38,194 inhabitants elect a member. It is also apparent that 
South Carolina holds the same advantage over New York 
in the creation of the national executive. It is true, that in 
the last apportionment South Carolina, being entitled to six 
members, had so large a fraction over, as, according to the 
rule adopted by congress, gave her a seventh member, and 
New York, although she had a fraction over, yet, that frac- 
tion being smaller than that of South Carolina, the same 
rule reduced her to thirty four members ; but it is neverthe- 
less evident, that under the compact of 1789, one citizen in 
South Carolina possesses nearly as much political power as 
two citizens of the state of New York. I have before stated, 
that the consideration for which New York and the other 
fi*ee states yielded to South Carolina and the other southern 
states a slave representation, was, that the latter states were 
to be taxed, in any system of direct taxation which might be 
adopted, in proportion to their representation. 

I now remark, that at the time the constitution was adopt- 
ed, it was probably expected that the government would be 
mainly supported by direct taxation. The immense influx 
of money which has since flowed into the treasvny from im- 
port duties was not then anticipated. The expectation to 
which I have alluded has not heretofore been realized. The 
public debt has been paid, and the expenditures of the gov- 
ernment have been defi-ayed without a resort to direct tax- 
ation, except at two very short intervals, and nothing is more 
certain than that direct taxation will never hereafter be re- 
sorted to as a permanent means of supporting the govern- 
ment. Hence the consideration for a slave representation 
never has been and never will be paid by the slave holding 
states. But this provision is not the less binding on us at the 
north on that account. We have entered into the covenant, 
and we must keep it. We ought not to disturb our south- 
ern brethren, and we will not disturlj them, in the enjoyment 
of what they denominate their property. If one citizen of 
South Carolina, or any other of the slave states, shall in 
pursuance of this national covenant at some future day pos- 
sess as much political power as three or four, instead as at pres- 
ent of two citizens of the state of New York, I have sworn 
to support the citizens of the slave holding states in the en- 



30 

joymeut and exercise of that power, and I will do so. I 
will perioral tlie condition of the bond, though the pound of 
Uesh nearest the heart is demanded. But the proposition 
to admit Texas, with the right of slave holding and slave 
representation, is an offer to enter into a new coivipact; and 
it being a new and original compact, surely each party has 
a right to consider and decide on the terms of the offer. If 
the reports of Gen. Lamar and other intelligent men are cor- 
rect, and I do not doubt their corectness, Texas is a coun- 
try, possessing a rich soil, peculiarly adapted to the abund- 
ant production of cotton and sugar, and a climate in all 
respects suited to a negro population. This being the case, 
it is evident that in no country in America can slave labor 
be employed to greater advantage than Texas. Hence I 
infer, that when Texas shall become a well settled country, 
the proportion of slaves, if slavery shall be tolerated, to the 
free inhabitants will be as great if not greater than it now 
is in any of the slave states ; and I think the calculation a 
very safe one, that there will in a very short time be found in 
that country, at least live slaves to three free inhabitants. 
The proportion of slaves in the West Indies, we all know, 
very lar exceeded five of the former to three of the latter. 
I lay out of view the suggestion of Mr. Benton, in one of his 
able speeches in the the senate, that from the small portion 
of Texas he proposes to annex, three slave and three free 
states may be created; for in that case, according to the view 
I am taking, the principle would be the same, and equally 
objectionable even if five free states are to be erected, and but 
one slave state. Taking it then for granted, that when Texas 
becomes settled there will be five slaves to three freemen, 
the present offer of Texas amounts simply to this. " If you 
New Yorkers," say the Texans, " will pay our debts, de- 
fend us against our enemies, (as you have done in the case 
of Florida) and will allow one citizen in Texas to possess 
and exercise as muoh political power as two citizens of the 
state of New York, we will consent to become partners and 
unite with you !" Without one word more of comment, I 
ask, whit representative from New York, or any other free 
state, will vote to accept such an ofier, and after thus barter- 
ing away the political power of his constituents, dare to look 
them in the face 1 But before closing I will add, that the 
principle of property representation is in direct collision 
with the genius and spirit of all the northern state- govern- 
ments, and utterly repugnant to our feelings. So much 
higher do we value the rights of persons than of property, 



31 

thatthevoteof John Jacob Astor is balanced by the vote of 
the pauper in the ahns house ; and yet the ofl'cr now gravely 
made, is to admit Texas on the condition that in conse- 
quence of a species of property held by its citizens, the vote 
of one Texan gambler or freebooter shall be equal to the 
vote of John Jacob Astor and the Patroon of Albany. 

Let not our southern brethren be deceived. True it is, 
the northern land speculator may, if he can realize his thou- 
sand per cent profit on his fictitious claims for land in Tex- 
as, disregard the rights of his fellow citizens and the rights 
of man, the holder of Texas scrip, prompted by the expecta- 
tion that by the wand of that mighty Midas to be forced into 
existence by a union of legislative and diplomatic power, 
his stock which cost him $10,000, will be instantaneously 
transformed into 100,000, the humble and hungry seeker 
for the crumbs of national patronage may hawk about our 
streets the " lone star" and an Ingersol, a Bancroti, or a 
Buchanan, dazzl ed with the prospect of a seat in the cabi- 
net, or a foreign embassy with all its paraphernalia, may in 
conjunction with speculators induce popular orators and 
printers to connect Polk and Dallas, Texas and Libert i/ to- 
gether, and invoke the huzzas of the muhitude upon the 
uttering of that singular combination of sounds ; yet there is, 
notwithstanding, a deep tone of feehng fixed in the breasts 
of a vast majority of the people north of Mason and Dixon's 
line, which will not be suppressed, and cannot be eradica- 
ted, against this unconstitutional, unjust, and unholy alli- 
ance. 

HAMDEN. 

Otsego County, Nov. 25, 1844. 



The preceding letter was in type before I had seen Gov. 
Hammond's message to the legislature of South Carolina, 
and before I had read the last message of the president of 
the United States; but the address of the governor merely 
affords confirmatory evidence of the position taken by me 
in the preceding pages, that the honest advocates of annexa- 
tion are desirous to eflTect that measure solely for the reason 
that it will secure and perpetuate slavery in the southern 
states; and the message of the president* does not, in my 

*Ihave not seen the documents which accorapanied the message. 



32 

judgment, present any arguments in favor of the project not 
noticed, and, as I humbly conceive, ansAvered in the fore- 
going sheets, except the following assertion, if indeed such 
an assertion can be considered an argument, " The decis- 
sion," says the president, " on this great and interesting 
subject, has beoi decisively manifested. The question of 
annexation has been presented nakedly to their considera- 
tion. ***** A controlling majority of the people, and 
a large majority of the states, have declared in favor of im- 
mediate annexation. Instructions have thus come up to 
both branches of the legislature from their respective con- 
stituents, in terms the most emphatic." 

The only way in which a state, as such, can speak, is 
through its legislature; and I am quite sure that a majority 
of the state legislatures have not declared in favor of annexa- 
tion, on the contrary, I think it probable, a majority of them 
are, at this moment, against the measure. 

It is very questionable, after deducting the votes cast by 
the abolitionists in the nation, all of whom are most cer- 
tainly opposed to annexation, whether a majority of the 
votes of the people have been given for Mr. Polk. At any 
rate, it is evident that if he has received a majority, that 
majority is very small. But in the State of New York, 
whose electoral vote made Mr. Polk president, he received 
237,588 votes, Mr. Clay 232,473, and Mr. Birney 15,812 ; 
and it will be admitted on all hands, that every vote given 
for Mr. Birney was given by a person opposed to annexation. 
Now, conceding what seemstobe assumed by the president, 
that every individual who voted for Mr. Polk was in favor, 
and, as would necessarily follow, that every person who 
voted for Mr. Clay was against, annexation, the aggregate 
vote for Clay and Birney being 248,285, and the number 
of votes for Polk being 237,588, the majority against an- 
nexation in New York is, 10697 ; and the State of New 
York having decided the election of president, upon what 
principle can it be claimed that the election of Mr. Polk is 
a decision in favor of annexation? I however insist, that, 
on a question of constitutional poAver in the executive or 
legislative department of the government, the votes of the peo- 
ple at the polls of the election cannot render that constitution- 
al, which, without such vote, is unconstitutional. If in this 
I am not right, our constitution may be altered at exerj 
presidential election, and may finally be Qx\i\Yf^\y ^ nullified .' 
But I peremptorily deny that all who voted for Mr. Polk 
intended by such vote to express their approbation of an- 
nexation. There are so many questions which always af- 



33 

feet the presidential election, that it seems to nie no reason- 
able man will seriously contend that a small majority for 
one of the candidates is evidence of the opinion of a majority 
of the votes on any one particular question ; far less can it 
be regarded as " instructions'''' on any single question dis- 
cussed during the canvass, to the two houses of the legislature. 
Local interests, views in relation to the personal fitness of the 
candidate, an infinite variety of measures, such as the tariff, 
the management of the fiscal concerns of the government, 
bank or no bank, &c., and perhaps more than all, attach- 
ment to the political party of which the voter tind candidate 
are members, do have, and atthe last election, independent 
of the Texas question, did have, a mighty and controlling 
effect on the mind of the voter. I repeat, what I have here- 
tofore stated, that I verily believe Mr. Polk received hund- 
reds of thousands of votes from persons opposed to annex- 
ation. 

But for the purpose of putting this matter at rest, I submit 
the following question. Had the author and negotiator of 
the Texan treaty, Mr. Tyler himself, continued to be, as 
at one time he was, a candidate in opposition to Mr. Clay, 
is there a man of common sense in this community Avho 
will not admit that Mr. T. would have been beaten by an 
immense majority 1 I put this question without intending 
or feeling the slightest disrespect for Mr. Tyler ; for we all 
know that men of the greatest personal and political merit 
may, fi-om accideiital circumstances, at times be unpopular. 
I merely state the fact, that I do not believe there is an in- 
dividual of either party, who holds a decent standing in so- 
ciety, who will not promptly express his belief that Mr Ty- 
ler would not in such an event have received more than a 
third part of the votes of the people of the United States. 
But, in case such an event had happened, what, according to 
the president's doctrine, would have been the ' Instruc- 
tions' the people would have sent up to the "two branches of 
the legislature?" Would the friends of annexation have 
considered instructions thus furnished binding upon them ? 
I trow not. The answer to this question decides the matter 
in controversy. 

I am, however, compelled to acknowledge, that when I 
consider that Mr. Polk is no doubt extremely anxious that 
this question should be disposed of before he commences 
his administration, that the friends of annexation will have 
it hi their power to create a'sort of fancy stock of governmen- 
tal patronage, by the promise of office "to any and all persons 
who can be usefid to them, to be conferred after the fourth 

LofC. ^ 



34 

of March, and after the deed shall have been done, that as Mr. 
Tyler's fliture political prospects may, in his judgment, very 
much depend on the annexation of" Texas, in pursuanceof 
his recommendation, the whole patronage and power of the 
present administration will be put in requisition to carry 
the measure ; and more especially that there is and will be 
afloat, on Capitol Hill and in the mai'ket, an incalculable 
amount of Texas Scrip — I am painfully apprehensive that 
before the fourth day of next March the novel and gigantic 
speculation of the purchase of a nation for ten millions of 
dollars, more or less, will be consummated, and the nation, 
which at present is comprised of twenty six United States, 
will cease to exist, and a new one will be formed composed 
of those states and the nation of Texas. In such an event 
the dreadflil evils resulting from it may not immediately be 
felt. A few years may pass away in apparent quietness ; 
but those evils must and will ultimately come. The conse- 
quences of the measure will reach far beyond the lives of 
those who are now busy and active on the political stage. 
If I might be allowed to avail myself of the words of Horace 
Walpole, without being charged with presuming to compare 
myself with him, I would say that " I desired not to pry into 
that book of futurity, could I finish my course in peace ; but 
one must take the chequered scenes of life as they come. — 
What signifies whether the elements are serene or turbident 
when a private old man slips away 1 What has he and the 
world's concerns to do with one another 1 He may sigh for 
his country, and babble about it; but he might as well sit 
quiet, and read or tell old stories ; the past is as important 
to him as the future." 

HAMDEN. 



Errata. — After the word "Jackson," in the second line from the hot- 
torn of page 8, insert " will in a future war land an invading arnij- in 
Texas?" In page 10, for " that data" read " these data." In page 
1], line n from the top, for " is," read " in." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 610 3637 '• 




